Yes.
.1111 is rational. Rational numbers are numbers that can be written as a fraction. Irrational numbers cannot be expressed as a fraction.
It is rational. An irrational number is a number that you cannot define by a fraction or a decimal. Since you wrote it as a decimal, it is rational.
no: the decimal is not repeating or terminating and therefore cannot be written as a fraction, which is one of the two requirements to be a rational number.
It is rational. An irrational number is a number that you cannot define by a fraction or a decimal. Since you wrote it as a decimal, it is rational.
An irrational number cannot be written as a fraction or to an exact decimal such as the symbol for pi or the square root of two. A rational number can be written in the form of a fraction or a decimal to an exact value.
The answer is not a rational number and therefore cannot be written out in full in decimal (or fractional) notation. It is approx 5.196152.
Any number which can be written exactly with a limited set of figures is "rational". Numbers which cannot be written with a limited set, because the decimal number goes on for ever is "irrational". So 1.4 is rational because it takes only 2 figures to write its value exactly.
A number can end or repeat but it cannot end andrepeat (other than repeat 000... or 999... ).A number that can be written as a terminating or repeating decimal is a rational number.
In most cases, you cannot.
It is a rational number.
You cannot. There is no way to determine if the number has or has not been rounded and so no way to determine if the number is a terminating, repeating or other form of decimal number. Without that information you cannot tell if it is rational.
A decimal is a way of representing a number in such a way that the place value of each digit is ten times that of the digit to its right. Any number can have a decimal representation. Rational numbers have decimal representations that are either terminating or recurring whereas non-recurring decimals represent irrational numbers.